raerae1980:*yawn* FTA: "There's no way to be sure, of course, as there are no confirmed pieces of John the Baptist to compare to the fragments of bone".

Therefore, this is BS.

/archaeologist

except that:1) the Bones are from an adult male2) that Adult male's DNA indicates he was Semetic3) Radio carbon dating confirms the man lived in the first century AD and dided around 35 AD4) the Box says they are the bones of John the Baptist

So, if it's a hoax, the haoxers managed to get genetically ,and radio-carbon content correct bones with which to pull of the hoax, a neat trick for the 4th century ad

No , there is no way to be sure, but If the ossuary claimed tocarry the bones of "Joe the Israeli camel herder" the ID we have so far would be enough for scientists to accept the inscription as accurate. but because it references a "famous name" No one would be willing to call it positively ID'ed no mater what additional evidence surface

Sorry Magorn, but all the information you listed DOES NOT make this a positive ID. Therefore, it is pure speculation.

What more can I say, as someone who has excavated and studied ancient skeletons? I'm not calling this a hoax, just that these bones should not be called the bones of John the Baptist. Like mentioned in the article, "There's no way to be sure, of course, as there are no confirmed pieces of John the Baptist to compare to the fragments of bone".

raerae1980:Sorry Magorn, but all the information you listed DOES NOT make this a positive ID. Therefore, it is pure speculation.

What more can I say, as someone who has excavated and studied ancient skeletons? I'm not calling this a hoax, just that these bones should not be called the bones of John the Baptist. Like mentioned in the article, "There's no way to be sure, of course, as there are no confirmed pieces of John the Baptist to compare to the fragments of bone".

But as i said, if you were excavating a house, and came across an ossuary that said "These are the Bones of Joe the Nobody, Camel Trader " and the bones inside were consistent with the time and place the claimed person was supposed to have lived, how would YOU label them in an archaeological report?A) Unindentified male age 30 circa 1 ad?B) presumed remains of Joe Nobody camel Merchant from Samaria circa 1 ad?

Now I understand the excess of caution when dealing with famous historical people and doubly so for religious figures, but it seems unfair to claim, on the one hand "there is no evidence that person x even existed" and on the other refuse to ascribe evidence that DOES exist because the person is too controversial

In a field report, I would note age, sex, ancestry, and burial goods associated with burial. If there are inscriptions on the tomb, or on the burial goods, absoultely include it in the report. My point is, it's fine to say that the inscriptions translate to John the Baptist, but there is no conclusive way to verify that, biologically, those bones belong to that particular historical figure. So, in my report, I would not say " These bones belong to the one and only John the Baptist from biblical times".

Now, if there was some DNA around that could be matched up, I'd be open to the idea. But until then, this is shady archaeology.

Just look at all the trouble we have had identifiying Billy the Kid. And his headstone reads "Billy the Kid".

raerae1980:In a field report, I would note age, sex, ancestry, and burial goods associated with burial. If there are inscriptions on the tomb, or on the burial goods, absoultely include it in the report. My point is, it's fine to say that the inscriptions translate to John the Baptist, but there is no conclusive way to verify that, biologically, those bones belong to that particular historical figure. So, in my report, I would not say " These bones belong to the one and only John the Baptist from biblical times".

Now, if there was some DNA around that could be matched up, I'd be open to the idea. But until then, this is shady archaeology.

Just look at all the trouble we have had identifiying Billy the Kid. And his headstone reads "Billy the Kid".

Okay, fair enough, and I totally agree with that point. Can You say this IS John the Baptist? No, and you never will be able to. Just like those Fruitcakes who keep making extraoridnary claims about the so-called "Jesus TOmb" derve all the derision they get for making such unsupportable claims.

I'm just saying that given the fact that the DNA makes this guy the right Age, Sex and living in the correct time period as the person he is claimed to be; if these are intentional fakes, someone got damned lucky

Magorn:raerae1980: In a field report, I would note age, sex, ancestry, and burial goods associated with burial. If there are inscriptions on the tomb, or on the burial goods, absoultely include it in the report. My point is, it's fine to say that the inscriptions translate to John the Baptist, but there is no conclusive way to verify that, biologically, those bones belong to that particular historical figure. So, in my report, I would not say " These bones belong to the one and only John the Baptist from biblical times".

Now, if there was some DNA around that could be matched up, I'd be open to the idea. But until then, this is shady archaeology.

Just look at all the trouble we have had identifiying Billy the Kid. And his headstone reads "Billy the Kid".

Okay, fair enough, and I totally agree with that point. Can You say this IS John the Baptist? No, and you never will be able to. Just like those Fruitcakes who keep making extraoridnary claims about the so-called "Jesus TOmb" derve all the derision they get for making such unsupportable claims.

I'm just saying that given the fact that the DNA makes this guy the right Age, Sex and living in the correct time period as the person he is claimed to be; if these are intentional fakes, someone got damned lucky

Yeah, or the guy just grabbed bones from a tomb where the dates looked right because he didn't want to spend all night searching the graveyard by torch light for the right grave to rob.

Magorn:raerae1980: Sorry Magorn, but all the information you listed DOES NOT make this a positive ID. Therefore, it is pure speculation.

What more can I say, as someone who has excavated and studied ancient skeletons? I'm not calling this a hoax, just that these bones should not be called the bones of John the Baptist. Like mentioned in the article, "There's no way to be sure, of course, as there are no confirmed pieces of John the Baptist to compare to the fragments of bone".

But as i said, if you were excavating a house, and came across an ossuary that said "These are the Bones of Joe the Nobody, Camel Trader " and the bones inside were consistent with the time and place the claimed person was supposed to have lived, how would YOU label them in an archaeological report?A) Unindentified male age 30 circa 1 ad?B) presumed remains of Joe Nobody camel Merchant from Samaria circa 1 ad?

Now I understand the excess of caution when dealing with famous historical people and doubly so for religious figures, but it seems unfair to claim, on the one hand "there is no evidence that person x even existed" and on the other refuse to ascribe evidence that DOES exist because the person is too controversial

Eh, there's no money to be made in "Joe Nobody the Camel Merchant", as opposed to the big money to be made from pilgrims coming to see John the Baptist. As to the age, there's been grave robbers as long as there have been graves ... it wouldn't be that hard to find a 1st century grave and use those bones. Without the cross-referencing of other samples from John's supposed reliquaries, this is just sensationalist nothingness.

Angry Monkey GodEh, there's no money to be made in "Joe Nobody the Camel Merchant", as opposed to the big money to be made from pilgrims coming to see John the Baptist.

Even more, calling it the remains of "Joe Nobody" is for our convenience.. you know, so that we have something to call the remains. If the guy's name was "Jim Nobody", it would change absolutely nothing about what we know about this person and how he lived.

However, if the "John the Baptist" bones were actually labelled "Fred the Baptist", then that would be a significant difference. The problem is not in saying "This guy's name was John". The problem is in saying "This john is the same as this other john, and thus we can infer stuff from this relationship."

So, Magorn, can you see the difference now? Saying these bones were of "John the Baptist" is a significantly bigger claim (it says more and thus requires more evidence) than saying these bones were of "Joe Nobody".